Back

A Qualitative Interview Study of General Practitioners' Experiences of Managing Post-COVID-19 Syndrome

Schulze, J.; Lind, L.; Rojas, A.; Luedtke, L.; Hensen, J.; Bergelt, C.; Haerter, M.; Pohontsch, N. J.

2024-04-25 primary care research
10.1101/2024.04.23.24306074 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe management of the long-term sequelae of COVID-19 infection, known as post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS), continues to challenge the medical community, largely due to a significant gap in the understanding of its aetiology, diagnosis and effective treatment. AimTo examine general practitioners (GPs) experiences of caring for patients with PCS and to identify unmet care needs and opportunities for improvement. Design and settingThis study follows a qualitative design, using in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews with GPs (N=31) from across Germany. MethodInterviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis. ResultsPatients with persistent symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection often consult their GPs as the first point of contact, with symptoms typically resolving within weeks. While ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 is perceived to be more common, the relevance of PCS to GP practices is considerable given its severe impact on patients functioning, social participation, and the substantial time required for patient care. GPs coordinate diagnosis and treatment, but face difficulties because of the unclear definition of PCS and difficulties in attributing symptoms, resulting in a cautious approach to ICD-10 coding. Interviewees highlight lengthy diagnostic pathways and barriers to accessing specialist care. ConclusionThe findings confirm the high functional limitations and psychosocial burden of PCS on patients and the central role of GPs in their care. The study suggests a need for further research and health policy measures to support GPs in navigating diagnostic uncertainty, interprofessional communication and the limited evidence on effective treatments. How this fits inPost-COVID-19 syndrome has garnered attention in research and healthcare, but limited evidence on its causes and effective treatment challenges clinicians. This study illustrates the symptom-driven approaches to diagnosis and treatment adopted by general practitioners and their concerns about referring patients to specialist clinics. Greater collaboration and communication across sectors and disciplines is needed to meet the identified need for interprofessional care. Research should also focus on developing comprehensive differential diagnostic protocols, and health policy should address barriers to accessing specific outpatient services.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.9%
2
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.6%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.0%
5
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.0%
7
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
8
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.7%
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
10
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
11
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
12
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
14
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
15
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
16
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
17
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
18
Journal of Sleep Research
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
19
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
20
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
21
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 69%
1.0%
22
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
23
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%